DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessing Irregular Warfare: a Framework for Intelligence Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

THE ARTS This PDF document was made available CHILD POLICY from www.rand.org as a public service of CIVIL JUSTICE the RAND Corporation. EDUCATION ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Jump down to document6 HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit NATIONAL SECURITY research organization providing POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY objective analysis and effective SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY solutions that address the challenges SUBSTANCE ABUSE facing the public and private sectors TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY around the world. TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Support RAND WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE Purchase this document Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the RAND Arroyo Center View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono- graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. Assessing Irregular Warfare A Framework for Intelligence Analysis Eric V. Larson, Derek Eaton, Brian Nichiporuk, Thomas S. Szayna Prepared for the United States Army Approved for public release; distribution unlimited ARROYO CENTER The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Army under Contract No. DASW01-01-C-0003. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Assessing irregular warfare : a framework for intelligence analysis / Eric V. Larson ... [et al.]. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-8330-4322-1 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Military intelligence—United States. 2. Asymmetric warfare. I. Larson, Eric V. (Eric Victor), 1957– UB251.U5A77 2008 355.3'432—dc22 2008004727 The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. R® is a registered trademark. © Copyright 2008 RAND Corporation All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND. Published 2008 by the RAND Corporation 1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2665 RAND URL: http://www.rand.org To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: [email protected] Preface This monograph documents the results of a study titled “Planning Intelligence Support to Irregular Warfare.” The aim of the study was to assist the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) in better understanding the intelligence analytic requirements of irregular war- fare (IW) by providing an analytic framework for IW on which to base an educational and training curriculum that would enhance the capa- bilities NGIC analysts use to assess IW situations. The results described should be of interest to intelligence analysts and managers in the intelligence community who are wrestling with the innumerable conceptual, collection, and analytic challenges presented by contemporary IW environments. Additionally, these results may be of interest to scholarly audiences involved in developing new analytic methodologies and tools that might be employed in IW analysis. This research was sponsored by the NGIC, a major subordinate command of the U.S. Army’s Intelligence and Security Command, and conducted within RAND Arroyo Center’s Strategy, Doctrine, and Resources Program. RAND Arroyo Center, part of the RAND Cor- poration, is a federally funded research and development center spon- sored by the United States Army. For comments or further information about this monograph, please contact Thomas Szayna (telephone 310-393-0411, extension 7758; e-mail [email protected]) or Eric Larson (telephone 310-393-0411, extension 7467; email [email protected]). The Project Unique Identification Code (PUIC) for the project that produced this document is NGIC-06001. iii iv Assessing Irregular Warfare: A Framework for Intelligence Analysis For more information on RAND Arroyo Center, contact the Director of Operations (telephone 310-393-0411, extension 6419; FAX 310-451- 6952; email [email protected]), or visit Arroyo’s Web site at http://www.rand.org/ard/. Contents Preface ............................................................................. iii Figures .............................................................................vii Tables .............................................................................. ix Summary .......................................................................... xi Acknowledgments ...............................................................xv Abbreviations ................................................................... xvii CHAPTER ONE Introduction ....................................................................... 1 Background to the Study .......................................................... 1 Study Aims and Analytic Approach ............................................. 3 Organization of This Monograph ................................................ 5 CHAPTER TWO Defining Irregular Warfare ..................................................... 7 A Review of Recent Efforts to Define Irregular Warfare ...................... 8 Irregular Warfare Operation Types .............................................11 Irregular Warfare Common Logical Lines of Operation .....................14 Chapter Conclusions ..............................................................17 CHAPTER THREE A Framework for Assessing Irregular Warfare ............................19 Population-Centric Irregular Warfare Operations ........................... 20 Initial Assessment and Data Gathering ..................................... 22 Detailed Stakeholder Analyses ............................................... 26 Dynamic Analyses ............................................................. 28 v vi Assessing Irregular Warfare: A Framework for Intelligence Analysis Analytic Techniques for Irregular Warfare Analysis ........................29 Counterterrorism Operations ....................................................35 Tactical Counterterrorism Operations ...................................... 38 Operations Against Transnational Terrorist Networks .....................39 Comparison to the Standard IPB Process ..................................... 40 Chapter Conclusions ............................................................. 43 CHAPTER FOUR Conclusions .......................................................................45 APPENDIX A. A Review of Defense Policy, Strategy, and Irregular Warfare ......47 B. Irregular Warfare Analysis Doctrinal References ......................61 References .........................................................................63 Figures S.1. Analytic Framework for IW Analysis ...............................xii 1.1. Analytic Approach for Identifying IW Intelligence and Analytic Requirements ................................................ 4 2.1. Intelligence Requirements for Irregular Warfare Logical Lines of Operation ....................................................16 3.1. IW Assessment Framework ......................................... 23 3.2. Geospatially Oriented Aspects of the Information Domain of the Operating Environment ......................................25 A.1. 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review’s Priorities ....................49 A.2. 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review’s View of Threats ........... 50 A.3. National Strategy for Global War on Terrorism ...................57 A.4. Military Strategic Framework for Greater War on Terrorism ....58 vii Tables 2.1. Irregular Warfare Missions and Activities .........................13 2.2. Irregular Warfare Logical Lines of Operation ....................15 3.1. Crosswalk with Standard IPB Process ............................ 42 ix Summary The aim of this study was to assist the Department of the Army’s National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) in better understanding the intelligence analytic requirements of irregular warfare (IW). To do this, we were to develop an analytic framework for IW that could be used as the basis for an educational and training curriculum that would enhance NGIC analysts’ capabilities for assessing IW situations. In December 2006, after considering a number of alternative def- initions for irregular warfare and acknowledging the many conceptual and other challenges associated with trying to define this term with precision, the Office of the Secretary
Recommended publications
  • How Technology Impacts Doctrine in Asymmetric Warfare

    How Technology Impacts Doctrine in Asymmetric Warfare

    0 How Technology Impacts Doctrine in Asymmetric Warfare Jeremiah Rozman Northfield Vermont Bachelors of Arts, University of Vermont, 2014 A Thesis presented to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Virginia in Candidacy for the Degree of Master of Arts Department of Foreign Affairs University of Virginia May, 2016 1 Abstract How does technology impact military doctrine, and how does this in turn impact political support for offensive, preventative or preemptive military action?1 I study defensive weapons systems, specifically focusing on missile defense in the theoretical context of technology and defense-based strategies as a whole. Through the study of Israel’s use of Iron Dome, I aim to demonstrate that technology can be an exogenous factor affecting military doctrine. Through careful case study analysis, I demonstrate that operationally successful defensive technologies can lead to the adoption of a defensive military doctrine by decreasing the political cost of inaction to the extent that allowing attrition becomes politically less costly than launching an offensive. Introduction A comparison of Israel’s two recent wars in Gaza, Operation Cast Lead in 2008/9 and Operation Protective Edge in 2014, indicates that the tactical success of Iron Dome, as a defensive military technology, can effect a change in military doctrine. The goal of this study is to demonstrate the effect of an unexpectedly successful defensive military technology on military doctrine, an effect which leads to prioritizing defense, allowing attrition, and moving away from a long-standing offense-based doctrine, specifically when dealing with asymmetric conflict. This study focuses on Israel, specifically in the Gaza theater of conflict and not in the Northern theater of conflict where Israel’s adversary, Hezbollah is 1 Preemptive war is defined as actor A launching a first strike in order to gain advantage in a situation where an attack by actor B is anticipated to be imminent.
  • The Erosion of Strategic Stability and the Future of Arms Control in Europe

    The Erosion of Strategic Stability and the Future of Arms Control in Europe

    Études de l’Ifri Proliferation Papers 60 THE EROSION OF STRATEGIC STABILITY AND THE FUTURE OF ARMS COntrOL IN EUROPE Corentin BRUSTLEIN November 2018 Security Studies Center The Institut français des relations internationales (Ifri) is a research center and a forum for debate on major international political and economic issues. Headed by Thierry de Montbrial since its founding in 1979, Ifri is a non- governmental, non-profit organization. As an independent think tank, Ifri sets its own research agenda, publishing its findings regularly for a global audience. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, Ifri brings together political and economic decision-makers, researchers and internationally renowned experts to animate its debate and research activities. The opinions expressed in this text are the responsibility of the author alone. ISBN: 978-2-36567-932-9 © All rights reserved, Ifri, 2018 How to quote this document: Corentin Brustlein, “The Erosion of Strategic Stability and the Future of Arms Control in Europe”, Proliferation Papers, No. 60, November 2018. Ifri 27 rue de la Procession 75740 Paris Cedex 15 – FRANCE Tel.: +33 (0)1 40 61 60 00 – Fax: +33 (0)1 40 61 60 60 Email: [email protected] Website: Ifri.org Author Dr. Corentin Brustlein is the Director of the Security Studies Center at the French Institute of International Relations. His work focuses on nuclear and conventional deterrence, arms control, military balances, and U.S. and French defense policies. Before assuming his current position, he had been a research fellow at Ifri since 2008 and the head of Ifri’s Deterrence and Proliferation Program since 2010.
  • Highlights of Recent RAND Research on Counterinsurgency

    Highlights of Recent RAND Research on Counterinsurgency

    Highlights of Recent RAND Research on Counterinsurgency For more information, contact Shirley Ruhe, Director of Congressional Relations, at 703-413-1100, x5632 or [email protected], or Kurt Card, National Security Legislative Analyst, at 703-413-1100 x5259 or [email protected] As the leading research authority on counterinsurgency, the RAND Corporation has developed a wide selection of materials for policy makers. With multiple insurgencies operating in several theaters this research was developed to provide a historical, geographical, and functional understanding of past and present insurgencies and counterinsurgency operations. Social Science for Counterterrorism Putting the Pieces Together Darcy Noricks et al., 2009 This report from an interdisciplinary project to survey and integrate the scholarly social- science literature relevant to counterterrorism answers questions related to why some individuals become terrorists, how terrorists generate public support, how terrorist organizations make decisions, and why individuals disengage. A Stability Police Force for the United States Justification and Options for Creating U.S. Capabilities Terrence K. Kelly et al., 2009 Establishing security is the sine qua non of stability operations, since it is a prerequisite for reconstruction and development. Security requires a mix of military and police forces to deal with a range of threats from insurgents to criminal organizations. This research examines the creation of a high-end police force, which the authors call a Stability Police Force. 1 Underkill Scalable Capabilities for Military Operations amid Populations David C. Gompert et al., 2009 The battle for Gaza revealed an extremist strategy: hiding in cities and provoking attack to cause civilian deaths that can be blamed on the attacking forces.
  • Military Guide to Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century

    Military Guide to Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century

    US Army TRADOC TRADOC G2 Handbook No. 1 AA MilitaryMilitary GuideGuide toto TerrorismTerrorism in the Twenty-First Century US Army Training and Doctrine Command TRADOC G2 TRADOC Intelligence Support Activity - Threats Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 15 August 2007 DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. 1 Summary of Change U.S. Army TRADOC G2 Handbook No. 1 (Version 5.0) A Military Guide to Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century Specifically, this handbook dated 15 August 2007 • Provides an information update since the DCSINT Handbook No. 1, A Military Guide to Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, publication dated 10 August 2006 (Version 4.0). • References the U.S. Department of State, Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Country Reports on Terrorism 2006 dated April 2007. • References the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), Reports on Terrorist Incidents - 2006, dated 30 April 2007. • Deletes Appendix A, Terrorist Threat to Combatant Commands. By country assessments are available in U.S. Department of State, Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Country Reports on Terrorism 2006 dated April 2007. • Deletes Appendix C, Terrorist Operations and Tactics. These topics are covered in chapter 4 of the 2007 handbook. Emerging patterns and trends are addressed in chapter 5 of the 2007 handbook. • Deletes Appendix F, Weapons of Mass Destruction. See TRADOC G2 Handbook No.1.04. • Refers to updated 2007 Supplemental TRADOC G2 Handbook No.1.01, Terror Operations: Case Studies in Terror, dated 25 July 2007. • Refers to Supplemental DCSINT Handbook No. 1.02, Critical Infrastructure Threats and Terrorism, dated 10 August 2006. • Refers to Supplemental DCSINT Handbook No.
  • Dominant Land Forces for 21St Century Warfare

    Dominant Land Forces for 21St Century Warfare

    No. 73 SEPTEMBER 2009 Dominant Land Forces for 21st Century Warfare Edmund J. Degen A National Security Affairs aperP published on occasion by THE INSTITUTE OF LAND WARFARE ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY Arlington, Virginia Dominant Land Forces for 21st Century Warfare by Edmund J. Degen The Institute of Land Warfare ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY AN INSTITUTE OF LAND WARFARE PAPER The purpose of the Institute of Land Warfare is to extend the educational work of AUSA by sponsoring scholarly publications, to include books, monographs and essays on key defense issues, as well as workshops and symposia. A work selected for publication as a Land Warfare Paper represents research by the author which, in the opinion of ILW’s editorial board, will contribute to a better understanding of a particular defense or national security issue. Publication as an Institute of Land Warfare Paper does not indicate that the Association of the United States Army agrees with everything in the paper, but does suggest that the Association believes the paper will stimulate the thinking of AUSA members and others concerned about important defense issues. LAND WARFARE PAPER NO. 73, September 2009 Dominant Land Forces for 21st Century Warfare by Edmund J. Degen Colonel Edmund J. Degen recently completed the senior service college at the Joint Forces Staff College and moved to the Republic of Korea, where he served as the U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) J35, Chief of Future Operations. He is presently the Commander of the 3d Battlefield Coordination Detachment–Korea. He previously served as Special Assistant to General William S.
  • Asymmetric Warfare - the Siege of Fallujah

    Asymmetric Warfare - the Siege of Fallujah

    ASYMMETRIC WARFARE - THE SIEGE OF FALLUJAH Csér Orsolya Abstract: Asymmetric warfare is a tactical process based on policy objectives which can be used to force our will upon the enemy. The non-traditional, inexpensive actions involving material damage and human casualties (such as terrorism, deployment of weapons of mass destruction, threat of using them, information warfare); guerrilla- and partisan-type raids implemented with simple tools and techniques are considered its basic advantages. All these are usually the weapons of the party fighting in the occupied territories (eg. bombings, suicide attacks, actions against logistics, command posts, attacks against officers, command staff, destruction of supply routes and transportation routes). The detection of these weapons and the psychological preparation of the soldiers is very difficult, because the offenders do not comply with the conventions of warfare. The siege of Fallujah in Iraq, which wrote itself into the history books as one of the most infamous and serious insurgencies and in which the media and propaganda played a major role, is regarded as an example of asymmetric warfare. Keywords: asymmetry, insurgency, guerrilla, civilians, civilian victim, propaganda, military gain 1. Introduction Asymmetry doesn't mean anything other than the lack of symmetry between the belligerents, partially or wholly. Asymmetric warfare is: "A warfare for the sake of precisely outlined political aims, often based on ideological, religious, ethnic community of several organizations, implementing military and non-military operations, tactics and techniques building upon direct and indirect effects and intensifying each other's effects, endangering different dimensions of security, mainly tactical procedures, with whose effect altogether we may force our will upon the enemy." All of this is such an activity that can be connected to asymmetric challenges, when the executors - in most cases not even sparing their own lives - execute military actions, and is usually done against a belligerent on a higher technological level.
  • Applying Traditional Military Principles to Cyber Warfare

    Applying Traditional Military Principles to Cyber Warfare

    2012 4th International Conference on Cyber Confl ict Permission to make digital or hard copies of this publication for internal use within NATO and for personal or educational use when for non-profi t or non-commercial C. Czosseck, R. Ottis, K. Ziolkowski (Eds.) purposes is granted providing that copies bear this notice and a full citation on the 2012 © NATO CCD COE Publications, Tallinn first page. Any other reproduction or transmission requires prior written permission by NATO CCD COE. Applying Traditional Military Principles to Cyber Warfare Samuel Liles Marcus Rogers Cyber Integration and Information Computer and Information Operations Department Technology Department National Defense University iCollege Purdue University Washington, DC West Lafayette, IN [email protected] [email protected] J. Eric Dietz Dean Larson Purdue Homeland Security Institute Larson Performance Engineering Purdue University Munster, IN West Lafayette, IN [email protected] [email protected] Abstract: Utilizing a variety of resources, the conventions of land warfare will be analyzed for their cyber impact by using the principles designated by the United States Army. The analysis will discuss in detail the factors impacting security of the network enterprise for command and control, the information conduits found in the technological enterprise, and the effects upon the adversary and combatant commander. Keywords: cyber warfare, military principles, combatant controls, mechanisms, strategy 1. INTRODUCTION Adams informs us that rapid changes due to technology have increasingly effected the affairs of the military. This effect whether economic, political, or otherwise has sometimes been extreme. Technology has also made substantial impacts on the prosecution of war. Adams also informs us that information technology is one of the primary change agents in the military of today and likely of the future [1].
  • Nuclear Deterrence and Conventional Conflict

    Nuclear Deterrence and Conventional Conflict

    VIEW Sticks and Stones Nuclear Deterrence and Conventional Conflict DR. KATHRYN M.G. BOEHLEFELD n the night of 15 June 2020, Sino- Indian tensions flared into fighting along the disputed border in the region known as the Galwan Valley. The fighting led to the first casualties along the border in 45 years. However, Ono one on either side fired a single shot.1 Instead, soldiers threw rocks and used wooden clubs wrapped in barbed wire to attack one another. Two of the most powerful armies in the world, both of which possess nuclear weapons, clashed with one another using sticks and stones. Nuclear weapons prevent nuclear states from engaging in large-scale conven- tional war with one another, or at least, the existence of such advanced weapons has correlated with a significant decrease in conventional war between nuclear- armed adversaries over the past 80 years. Nuclear weapons tend to make nuclear adversaries wearier of engaging in conventional warfare with one another because they fear inadvertent escalation: that a war will spiral out of control and end in a nuclear exchange even if the war’s aims were originally fairly limited. However, this fear has not fully prevented the Chinese and Indian militaries from engaging in skirmishes, like the one that occurred in June 2020. Where does escalation to- ward nuclear war start, and what does this conflict teach both us and major world players about the dangers and opportunities associated with low levels of conflict between nuclear powers? Escalation to nuclear use may occur as a deliberate and premeditated choice or inadvertently as the result of a security dilemma, the offensive nature of militaries, and/or due to the fog of war.2 This article argues that the Sino- Indian border dispute demonstrates that the drivers of inadvertent escalation may be present even at exceptionally low levels of conflict.
  • Unconventional Warfare: a Historical Perspective

    Unconventional Warfare: a Historical Perspective

    Unconventional Warfare: A Historical Perspective NAGAO Yuichiro 1. Preface By definition, a war is fought between sovereign states, and this has become a normative concept when we talk about war. There was a historical background for this. It was the brainchild of political and intellectual leaders of the 17th and 18th centuries who sought to settle differences among people in a civilized manner, and other forms of armed conflict were severely restricted. As the years rolled on into the 20th century, however, unusual armed conflicts have steadily increased. Notwithstanding the paradigm of war between sovereign states has not yet lost its relevance. Meanwhile, the acts of terrorism committed in the United States on September 11 shook the world. Words such as “new war” and “asymmetric war” have since gained currency and have come to be used in various contexts. With these in mind, this paper will survey the history of wars between states and examine in light of these developments the significance that unconventional warfare takes on in armed conflict as a whole. 2. What is Unconventional Warfare? To start with, it is necessary to define the concept “unconventional warfare,” the subject of this paper, to clarify the points of argument contained herein. The antonym of unconventional warfare is conventional warfare, which means a battle between states’ regular armed forces. Therefore, unconventional warfare is a generic term that covers all military and quasi-military operations other than conventional warfare. More specifically, one dictionary lists under the heading “unconventional warfare” revolutionary wars and its constituents, subversion and guerrilla; command raids and other and special operations; terrorism and counter-terrorism.
  • Ground Electronic Warfare: Background and Issues for Congress

    Ground Electronic Warfare: Background and Issues for Congress

    Ground Electronic Warfare: Background and Issues for Congress September 17, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45919 SUMMARY R45919 Ground Electronic Warfare: Background and September 17, 2019 Issues for Congress John R. Hoehn Ground electronic warfare (EW) is a group of programs directed by the Army and Marine Corp Analyst in Military which are designed to effect ground forces use of the electromagnetic spectrum. The U.S. Capabilities and Programs military has several ground EW programs that are used for different missions. These programs can broadly be categorized into counter-improvised explosive device (C-IED) systems, counter- unmanned aerial systems (C-UAS), and communications and radar jammers. Over the past several years, senior leaders in the Army and Marine Corps have testified about the need to improve EW capabilities. Role of EW in Ground Operations EW is a component of modern warfare, particularly in response to threats posed by potential adversaries such as Russia and China. EW refers to operations that use the electromagnetic spectrum (i.e., the “airwaves”) to detect, listen to, jam, and deceive (or “spoof”) enemy radars, radio communication systems, data links, and other electronic systems. EW also refers to operations that defend against enemy attempts to do the same. Ground EW programs have gained importance in an era of “great power competition.” Countries like Russia and China have developed so-called anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) systems, some of which are designed to prevent U.S. military access to radio and satellite communications, and to deny the use of radars for artillery and air defense operations.
  • Defense Primer: Electronic Warfare

    Defense Primer: Electronic Warfare

    Updated October 29, 2020 Defense Primer: Electronic Warfare Electronic warfare (EW), as defined by the Department of Electronic protection involves actions to protect access Defense (DOD), are military activities that use to the spectrum for friendly military assets. electromagnetic energy to control the electromagnetic Electronic attack uses electromagnetic energy to spectrum (“the spectrum”) and attack an enemy. The degrade or deny an enemy’s use of the spectrum. spectrum is a range of frequencies for electromagnetic EW support identifies and catalogues emissions of energy. EW supports command and control (C2) by friendly or enemy forces to either protect U.S. forces or allowing military commanders’ access to the spectrum to develop a plan to deny an enemy’s access to the communicate with forces, while preventing potential spectrum. adversaries from accessing the spectrum to develop an These subsets of EW often mutually support each other in operational picture and communicate with their forces. operations. EW support uses equipment to assess both Some have argued that EW is a component of anti- friendly and adversary electronic emissions. This access/area denial (A2/AD) campaigns. information can then be used to develop a protection plan to maintain access to the spectrum or an attack plan to deny Role of EW in Military Operations adversaries vital access. Radar jamming (electronic attack) Since the introduction of two-way radios, militaries have can serve a protection function for friendly forces to become dependent on the spectrum. This reliance has penetrate defended airspace, and it prevents an adversary expanded over the past century to include nearly every from having a complete operating picture.
  • Counterinsurgency Operations

    Counterinsurgency Operations

    The Basics of Counterinsurgency By R. Scott Moore1 Abstract The study examines the basic characteristics of insurgencies and counterinsurgency campaigns conducted over the past century, strip away many of the prevailing assumptions. Based on detailed analysis of nearly sixty counterinsurgency campaigns, successful and unsuccessful, as well as the lessons learned by American and Coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001, the conclusions offer a historically grounded framework for thinking about counterinsurgency. While every conflict exhibited its own unique causes and conditions requiring tailored solutions, as a whole the many counterinsurgency campaigns exhibited fundamental characteristics that remained constant. If there were no immutable laws or empirical formulas for counterinsurgency, there existed certain basic principles and traits that marked and will continue to mark successful, and unsuccessful, outcomes. Introduction Recent operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have forcibly highlighted the need to reexamine how we fight irregular conflicts, and especially insurgencies to find a strategy to address these emerging threats. Religious extremism, ethnic intolerance, and socio- economic imbalances have given birth to fanatical movements demanding radical change. Insurgencies, and the terrorism that accompanies them, pose complex challenges threatening political and social stability and defying military attempts to suppress or defeat them. Unfortunately, if the conceptual confusion emanating from the many debates over these conflicts is any indication, we seem to have forgotten the past while attempting to reinvent the future. The lack of an integrated and multi-dimensional approach to these new threats too often leads to confusion and disjointed responses and acrimonious debates not only over what needs to be done, but who- military or civilian- should do it.